"Risking the Carriers" Topic

The U.S. currently operates its super-carriers in areas that expose them to risk from hostile Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) networks – for example, the Persian Gulf.

The argument for the current policy is that using the carriers in this way ensures access to the "global commons" (international waterways) and helps to prevent war.

Critics claim that this indiscriminately puts the Fleet in harm's way.

Should the U.S. pull back its carriers from higher-risk areas?

No, this allows us a better opportunity at first strike anywhere in the world if needed. And, if I'm not mistaken, carrier groups have some very extensive defense in place.

It wasn't such a risk when we had a sufficient number of carriers and escorts to protect them.

Hopefully whoever takes a shot at a carrier get one, and only one chance. After that I would hope their military is kaput.

I would think dangerous areas would be where they need to be. Might as well not spend the money if we do not use them.

I suspect the US admirals will keep carrier battlegroups, or whatever they now call them, from venturing in too close into harm's way, to be attacked at those chokepoints.

Granted our F-18s now have rather short legs, and the A-6s have been/are being retired, which complicates matters a bit, but they can still stand off and pound our enemies from over the horizon.

The only wild-card is a stupid CIC doing stuff for political gain, regardless of the risks, and not listening to his admirals. Then, they will be in very dangerous waters.

The US Navy should have 18 carriers because it takes three to insure one on station. One en-route to or from base, one in repair, upgrade, refueling or training, and finally, one in operations. We need at least 6 on station, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, China, Cuba.

For short term operations you can cut back on maintenance and training, or stack them in one place, but you can't do that for long. In WWII we faced enemies in the Pacific, Med., and Western Europe. Imagine if that were true now…

If your weapons are not deployable, then they are worthless and you have given potential enemies a victory.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

From a political point of view you have to balance the "I'll go where the hell I like" with the "keep our people out of harms way".

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."

It is in the nature of the USN to go in harms way.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Are we talking 10 years ago?

Back when we had a large force of carriers, the bad guys always had to think twice about misbehaving. They never knew for certain if one of those carriers wasn't just over the horizon. I am not a fan of the US being the world's policeman, but a lot of the world's trouble spots sure were quieter then.

Isn't complaining that the fleet is in harms way a bit like the M.A.S.H. episode where the Lt. didn't want to send his ambulances to the front line to pick up wounded because the vehicles might get damaged?

Depends on two considerations, who we are at war with, and how many carriers are we willing to lose.

Look what the Argentines did to the British ships in the Falklands with only half-a-dozen Exocets. Also recall that an Iraqi plane nailed the USS Stark with a single Exocet.

I am sure that China and Russia both have enough ASMs to overwhelm a CV groups defenses. I'm thinking that we will pull them back till our cruise missiles take out the primary threats and move the fleet in only after we are certain that the threat has been eliminated.

Are we talking 10 years ago?

Actually, there was a recent article in Proceedings and a rebuttal letter to the editor…

Mako11
The A-6 is long gone, nearly twenty years ago. You've got Plastic Bugs or Super Bugs that's it.

Fatman

I thought I read just the other day that they were being retired, e.g. perhaps last year.

I suspect that isn't the bombers, but the ECM/ELINT models?

Then again, perhaps I got caught in one of those darned time warp vortices they say exist.

We need at least 6 on station, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, China, Cuba.

Cuba is well within range of land-based aviation from Florida so a carrier there is unnecessary.

Ukraine would mean putting a carrier group in the Black Sea…which is practically a Russian lake. Extremely risky, and IMO, the "rewards" aren't worth it. If you are comfortable sticking a CBG in the Black Sea, would you also be comfortable if Russia based their carrier out of Cuba? If not, why?

Isn't complaining that the fleet is in harms way a bit like the M.A.S.H. episode where the Lt. didn't want to send his ambulances to the front line to pick up wounded because the vehicles might get damaged?

Pretty much.

We need at least 6 on station, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, China, Cuba.

Korea? We have an utterly unsinkable aircraft carrier in the area, it's called Japan.

Who needs a carrier in the Black Sea when NATO member states share borders with the Ukraine?

Iraq and Afghanistan are just at that awkward distance, where two carrier groups seems like overkill and one carrier can't really be in the right spot to address both. So you're stuck with one carrier in the Persian Gulf and one in the Arabian Sea. Right now, that's HALF the deployed carrier force, so I do agree that the US probably needs ~3 more carriers.

Mostly because the US probably needs to park a carrier group in the South China Seas to deal with China's increased belligerency. While we do have one carrier based in Japan, it seems to see more use in Disaster Relief missions than in patrolling. I'd want to shift a MEU to be homeported in Okinawa for disaster relief missions, since the Marines have by far the better aircraft fit for that (lots and lots of helos, with a couple Harriers or F35s for fast recon).

Finally, Cuba. Cuba is 90 miles from the US. Even a fully loaded FA18C/D is capable of flying a strike from the US, without external tanks or tanker support. Don't need a carrier there.

Flying land based aircraft out of the US to attack Cuba is one option, but with a carrier you can interdict supplies going to Cuba from any direction and you can attack Cuba with even less notice and from an odd direction.

Cuba will have spies with cell phones sitting at the end of every runway in the South if we went to war with them reporting every take off an landing. CNN if nothing else will do the same.

Carriers provide more flexibility. And who can predict who we will be at war with in six months or ten years from now? Remember it costs billions to build a carrier and ten years or more in time. We have to be ready for enemies we might not even guess at.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I'm confused. We (Americans) are worried about Cuba because??? From what I've read, Cuba has total 6 MiG-29s, 40 MiG-23s, and 12 MiG-21s. Vs 482nd Fighter wing out of Homestead, F-16C/D. Not sure about their numbers. But probably a similar number I would guess.

We are worried about Cuba because Russia and Venezuela are both starting to rattle sabres and Cuba could again become a flash point. Communist China is also building carriers and moving into Central America.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Mention of spies sitting at the end of every runway in the south with cell phones reminded me of the scene in "Black Hawk Down" where the little Somali kid on a hill top holds his phone up as the choppers roar by overhead. The sound said it all. "Raid on the way."

I happen to be reading the US Army's history of "The Campaign In The Marianas" in WWII. The IJN sorties and the fast carriers and escorts go forth, dozens of fast carriers and literally hundreds of escorts; fast battleships, heavy cruisers, light cruisers, destroyers. All the escorts there for one purpose, protects the fast carries. Every escort covered in guns to take out enemy air. Quantity certainly has a quality of its own. A kamikaze was a cruise missile. In spite of hundreds of fighters, thousands of AA guns, some always got through.

This is the same Cuba which is going to be full of MacDonalds in two years time? I really don't think you need to worry about Cuba, they just want those tourist dollars.

I'm always amused when people take the time to type out "Communist China". Should we type "Capitalist America" every time?
"Mixed economy leaning on free market with some safeguards Norway" ?

@ Weasal. Although this may get me in trouble with the authorities of c-o-m-m-u-n-i-s-t China, I believe there are two Chinas.

Just in case you want to tell me one is called 'Taiwan', I believe they style themselves 'The Republic of China'

link

Ochoin report for re-education

@Ochoin: Nope, there is only one China. The government on Formosa lost the civil war but wasn't wiped out before the Korean War got started.

The US had actually told Mao back in 1949 to go ahead and finish the Civil War, but by the time Mao had mobilized and moved all his troops, some Stalin-backed dipstick by the name of Kim started a fight on the Korean peninsula. Which lead the US to tell Mao that if he wanted Formosa, he'd have to get it through the US 7th Fleet.